Outcomes for patients with hematologic malignancy infected with COVID-19 have not been aggregated. The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the risk of death and other important outcomes for these patients. We searched PubMed and EMBASE up to 20 August 2020 to identify reports of patients with hematologic malignancy and COVID-19. The primary outcome was a pooled mortality estimate, considering all patients and only hospitalized patients. Secondary outcomes included risk of intensive care unit admission and ventilation in hospitalized patients. Subgroup analyses included mortality stratified by age, treatment status, and malignancy subtype. Pooled prevalence, risk ratios (RRs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model. Thirty-four adult and 5 pediatric studies (3377 patients) from Asia, Europe, and North America were included (14 of 34 adult studies included only hospitalized patients). Risk of death among adult patients was 34% (95% CI, 28-39; N = 3240) in this sample of predominantly hospitalized patients. Patients aged ≥60 years had a significantly higher risk of death than patients <60 years (RR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.45-2.27; N = 1169). The risk of death in pediatric patients was 4% (95% CI, 1-9; N = 102). RR of death comparing patients with recent systemic anticancer therapy to no treatment was 1.17 (95% CI, 0.83-1.64; N = 736). Adult patients with hematologic malignancy and COVID-19, especially hospitalized patients, have a high risk of dying. Patients ≥60 years have significantly higher mortality; pediatric patients appear to be relatively spared. Recent cancer treatment does not appear to significantly increase the risk of death.

The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review of the literature on vaccine responsiveness in patients who have received anti-CD20 therapy. PubMed and EMBASE were searched up to 4 January 2021 to identify studies of vaccine immunogenicity in patients treated with anti-CD20 therapy, including patients with hematologic malignancy or autoimmune disease. The primary outcomes were seroprotection (SP), seroconversion (SC), and/or seroresponse rates for each type of vaccine reported. As the pandemic influenza vaccine (2009 H1N1) has standardized definitions for SP and SC, and represented a novel primary antigen similar to the COVID-19 vaccine, meta-analysis was conducted for SC of studies of this vaccine. Pooled estimates, relative benefit ratios (RBs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model. Thirty-eight studies (905 patients treated with anti-CD20 therapy) were included (19 studies of patients with hematologic malignancies). Patients on active (<3 months since last dose) anti-CD20 therapy had poor responses to all types of vaccines. The pooled estimate for SC after 1 pandemic influenza vaccine dose in these patients was 3% (95% CI, 0% to 9%), with an RB of 0.05 (95% CI, 0-0.73) compared with healthy controls and 0.22 (95% CI, 0.09-0.56) compared with disease controls. SC compared with controls seems abrogated for at least 6 months following treatment (3-6 months post anti-CD20 therapy with an RB of 0.50 [95% CI, 0.24-1.06] compared with healthy and of 0.44 [95% CI, 0.23-0.84] compared with disease controls). For all vaccine types, response to vaccination improves incrementally over time, but may not reach the level of healthy controls even 12 months after therapy.

PURPOSE: Recent studies of polatuzumab vedotin and CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (CAR-T) have shown significant improvements in progression-free survival over standard of care (SOC) for patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. However, they are costly, and it is unclear whether these strategies, alone or combined, are cost-effective over SOC. METHODS: A Markov model was constructed to compare four strategies for patients with newly diagnosed intermediate- to high-risk diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: strategy 1: polatuzumab-rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone (R-CHP) plus second-line CAR-T for early relapse (< 12 months); strategy 2: polatuzumab-R-CHP plus second-line salvage therapy ± autologous stem-cell transplant; strategy 3: rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone plus second-line CAR-T for early relapse; strategy 4: SOC (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone plus second-line salvage therapy ± autologous stem-cell transplant). Transition probabilities were estimated from trial data. Lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated from US and Canadian payer perspectives. Willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of $150,000 US dollars (USD) or Canadian dollars (CAD)/QALY were used. RESULTS: In probabilistic analyses (10,000 simulations), each strategy was incrementally more effective than the previous strategy, but also more costly. Adding polatuzumab-R-CHP to the SOC had an ICER of $546,956 (338,797-1,199,923) USD/QALY and $245,381 (151,671-573,250) CAD/QALY. Adding second-line CAR-T to the SOC had an ICER of $309,813 (190,197-694,200) USD/QALY and $303,163 (221,300-1,063,864) CAD/QALY. Simultaneously adding both polatuzumab-R-CHP and second-line CAR-T to the SOC had an ICER of $488,284 (326,765-840,157) USD/QALY and $267,050 (182,832-520,922) CAD/QALY. CONCLUSION: Given uncertain incremental benefits in long-term survival and high costs, neither polatuzumab-R-CHP frontline, CAR-T second-line, nor a combination are likely to be cost-effective in the United States or Canada at current pricing compared with the SOC.

There is increasing interest from cancer patients and their healthcare providers in the use of virtual care in routine clinical practice. In the setting of hematologic malignancy, where patients often undergo complex and immunodepleting treatments, understanding how to use virtual care safely and effectively is critically important. We aimed to describe the use of virtual care in patients with hematologic malignancies and to examine physician- and patient-reported outcomes in the form of a systematic scoping review. An electronic search of PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Elsevier Embase, Scopus, and EBSCO CINAHL was conducted from January 2000 to April 2021. A comprehensive search strategy was used to identify relevant articles, and data were extracted to assess the study design, population, setting, patient characteristics, virtual care platform, and study results. Studies were included if they described the use of virtual care for patients with hematologic malignancies; commentaries were excluded. Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria after abstract and full-text review. Three studies found that app-based tools were effective in monitoring patient symptoms and triggering alerts for more urgent follow-up. Four studies described the use of phone-based interventions. Five studies found that videoconferencing, with both physicians and oncology nurses, was highly rated by patients. Emerging themes included high levels of patient satisfaction across all domains of virtual care. Provider satisfaction scores were rated lower than patient scores, with concerns about technical issues leading to challenges with virtual care. Four studies found that virtual care allowed providers to promptly respond to patient concerns, especially when patients were experiencing side-effects or had questions about their treatment. Overall, the use of virtual care in patients with hematologic malignancies appears feasible, and resulted in high patient satisfaction. Further research is needed in order to evaluate the optimal method of integrating virtual care into clinical practice.